WMR Class 196 Build and Implementation

[Jacob Porrett]

Didn't all the 153s go to TfW and are WMR drivers still signed for them?

Think the WMR 153s went to Burton for storage correct if I'm wrong.

 

[DannyMich2018]

When are the WMR 323s going to northern?

Be in 2023. Plan was to have first 730 in service this November so not 323s will go north till 2023

 

[QSK19]

Be in 2023. Plan was to have first 730 in service this November so not 323s will go north till 2023

I fear this is a repeat of the 196/170 scenario, the only difference seemingly being EMU instead of DMU .

If experience with the 196s is anything to go by, 2023 would be a huge achievement.

 

[Liam L]

When are the WMR 323s going to northern?

Once the 730s are ready

02,03,05-13,17-19, 41-3 going to Northern

Cheers

Think the WMR 153s went to Burton for storage correct if I'm wrong.

They was moved to Long Marston not long ago I think.

 

[Wyrleybart]

When are the WMR 323s going to northern?

After the 730/0s start to be delivered and put into service.

Yet another delivery disaster for WMR. Don't forget 323s are the only type of EMU that can be used on the X city service so it wouldnt be possible to use say 350/2s . But they are unlikely to be released by 730/1s anyway due to the shambolic Aventra production.

I fear this is a repeat of the 196/170 scenario, the only difference seemingly being EMU instead of DMU .

If experience with the 196s is anything to go by, 2023 would be a huge achievement.

But lets remind ourselves there are several players in the class 196 debacle.
It appears the new WMR franchise was based on DCO operation so guards door panels were not fitted to 196s due to the build phase - unlike the 195 and 197. This means all 196s have had to be retro fitted with guards door panels. Presume the taxpayers are paying for that particular blunder.

 

[DavidGrain]

What is the point about guards panels? As the guard is normally based in one of the driving cabs either at the rear of the train or in the middle then surely the drivers door controls are available. As WMR guards operate the door controls standing on the platform, I presume they are in a position which the driver cannot reach. However what is the position when the guard operates the doors from one of the passenger doors?

 

[centraltrains]

What is the point about guards panels? As the guard is normally based in one of the driving cabs either at the rear of the train or in the middle then surely the drivers door controls are available. As WMR guards operate the door controls standing on the platform, I presume they are in a position which the driver cannot reach. However what is the position when the guard operates the doors from one of the passenger doors?

For the Snow Hill Lines guards move to the rear most door to dispatch from short platforms, or from any coach if they're in the saloon checking/selling tickets.
If the 196s are like the 172s with regards to gangways, the cabs in the middle will be inaccessible as doors are locked into position to allow passengers to move between the two trains rather than to access the cab.

Given it's been mooted earlier in the thread that there may be 1 diagram on the Snow Hill Lines for a 196 (crewed by Worcester workers), Snow Hill Lines are probably a relevant comparison to make.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

323s are the only type of EMU that can be used on the X city service so it wouldnt be possible to use say 350/2s

Why?

 

[Speed43125]

Why?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was just in response to a question as to when the 323s will start leaving the fleet. So Wyrley is just saying that that's the only fleet crews are trained on (and presumably platform lengths optimised for) rather than a technical reason the Desiros might be barred from the route.

 

[Class172]

Why?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was just in response to a question as to when the 323s will start leaving the fleet. So Wyrley is just saying that that's the only fleet crews are trained on (and presumably platform lengths optimised for) rather than a technical reason the Desiros might be barred from the route.

There's also the fact that the Cross-City line platforms are very much designed around a 3/6-car operation, so you'd likely end up with some serious capacity issues even if you did train crews, as 2x350s would be too long to use.

 

[railwaytrack]

What is the point about guards panels? As the guard is normally based in one of the driving cabs either at the rear of the train or in the middle then surely the drivers door controls are available. As WMR guards operate the door controls standing on the platform, I presume they are in a position which the driver cannot reach. However what is the position when the guard operates the doors from one of the passenger doors?

Have the 196s even been built with Guard door controls in the cabs? Perhaps they were built without any door controls in the cabs so they need retrofitting in the cabs as well as in the saloon?

Thinking about it i do not think the 195s and 331s have any Guard door controls in the cabs. As i remember that during the corona virus some Guards were blocking off an entire coach for themselves so i think they only have them in the saloon.

Sensibly it seems that TFW have built ordered the 197s with full Guard door controls in both the cabs and the saloon. I believe that the 231s and 398s and 756s also have full door control panels too (although i am not too sure if they have them in the cabs too or only in the saloon) on these trains. It is a shame CAF does not build trains with door control panels in the cabs and in the saloon as standard (regardless of whether they will be DOO operated) like Siemens does. It would save this mess of having to retrofit them.

For the Snow Hill Lines guards move to the rear most door to dispatch from short platforms, or from any coach if they're in the saloon checking/selling tickets.
If the 196s are like the 172s with regards to gangways, the cabs in the middle will be inaccessible as doors are locked into position to allow passengers to move between the two trains rather than to access the cab.

Given it's been mooted earlier in the thread that there may be 1 diagram on the Snow Hill Lines for a 196 (crewed by Worcester workers), Snow Hill Lines are probably a relevant comparison to make.

So the middle cabs are completely inaccessible when two 172/2 or 172/3 are coupled to each other? Can the Guard not still use their key to unlock the door to the cab part and operate the doors from there?

On all 350/375/377/379/387/444/450/458 the Guard can work from one of the middle cabs when more than one unit is coupled to each other. So i would be very surprised if this is not possible on the 172/2 and 172/3 as well.

Also on the Turbostar classes 170 and 172 trains the Guards indeed have to use the Door Deselect by going to the rear coach that fits on the platform on the short platforms. But i am guessing that the 196s will likely have ASDO so the Guards will be able to release the doors from any coach on these trains.

 

[172007]

196 cabs only have door controls available for the driver at their position and as I understand all tied up with the computer system as its uses ASDO for short platforms so guard panels need retro fitting everywhere. If Covid hadn't have hit then DCO would most certainly have been on Shrewsbury, Hereford and Snow Hill lime series series.

Whilst class 323's are not necessarily theoretical thr only class to be able to use the cross city the problem is that the only other class available to WM are class 350's and they do not have anywhere near the acceleraton to remotely keep to the timetable set for class 323's.

 

[Sprinter107]

Have the 196s even been built with Guard door controls in the cabs? Perhaps they were built without any door controls in the cabs so they need retrofitting in the cabs as well as in the saloon?

Thinking about it i do not think the 195s and 331s have any Guard door controls in the cabs. As i remember that during the corona virus some Guards were blocking off an entire coach for themselves so i think they only have them in the saloon.

Sensibly it seems that TFW have built ordered the 197s with full Guard door controls in both the cabs and the saloon. I believe that the 231s and 398s and 756s also have full door control panels too (although i am not too sure if they have them in the cabs too or only in the saloon) on these trains. It is a shame CAF does not build trains with door control panels in the cabs and in the saloon as standard (regardless of whether they will be DOO operated) like Siemens does. It would save this mess of having to retrofit them.


So the middle cabs are completely inaccessible when two 172/2 or 172/3 are coupled to each other? Can the Guard not still use their key to unlock the door to the cab part and operate the doors from there?

On all 350/375/377/379/387/444/450/458 the Guard can work from one of the middle cabs when more than one unit is coupled to each other. So i would be very surprised if this is not possible on the 172/2 and 172/3 as well.

Also on the Turbostar classes 170 and 172 trains the Guards indeed have to use the Door Deselect by going to the rear coach that fits on the platform on the short platforms. But i am guessing that the 196s will likely have ASDO so the Guards will be able to release the doors from any coach on these trains.

The middle cabs on 172/2s and /3s are accessible when coupled, but on those sub classes the door buttons are inoperative in couple mode. Only the door buttons in the rear cab, or the saloon panels work.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Why?

AIUI 323s are the only units authorised to operate X city services.
I don't know why, but I am pretty sure CT and LMT and WMR have never even trialled a 350 on the routes let alone used one in emergency.
I would welcome being corrected on this but obviously 4 car units throw a spanner into the works on a route adapted for 3 car and 6 car trains.

Have the 196s even been built with Guard door controls in the cabs? Perhaps they were built without any door controls in the cabs so they need retrofitting in the cabs as well as in the saloon?

Thinking about it i do not think the 195s and 331s have any Guard door controls in the cabs. As i remember that during the corona virus some Guards were blocking off an entire coach for themselves so i think they only have them in the saloon.

There must be door controls in the cabs of the 196s as built simply because they were ordered by the TOC and with DfT authorisation. This was because DCO was going to be the de facto method of train operation for the franchise. Personally am very surprised the Rosco who has lashed out many many million for this fleet didn't specify guards door controls in the saloons, then hid them with blanking plates and isolated the system for delivery to the TOC. Then hey presto, when it was realised that DCO would be dropped, the blanking plates were simply removed.

It is all about ordering rolling stock with a long shelf life and switchability after franchise changes. How many franchises operate diesel units using the DCO / DOO method ? We are seeing this with the stored class 379s - just eleven years old and redundant by GA. Ideally could be used on the GN route out of Kings Cross but need fitting with ETCS to do that, and who would pay ?

 

[craigybagel]

If I recall traction knowledge lapses after six months, which I believe we are well beyond by now unfortunately.

It does yeah, wouldn't take much to get crew retrained if needed though

What would be more of an issue is that the 153s in storage are not PRM compliant.

What is the point about guards panels? As the guard is normally based in one of the driving cabs either at the rear of the train or in the middle then surely the drivers door controls are available. As WMR guards operate the door controls standing on the platform, I presume they are in a position which the driver cannot reach. However what is the position when the guard operates the doors from one of the passenger doors?

Assuming the door controls in the drivers desk are in the same position as on a 197, it's perfect for someone sitting in the drivers seat, but impossible to reach for a guard standing on the platform. 197s have two sets of door controls in the cab - a set on the desk for the driver and one on each side wall next to the cab doors that can be reached from the platform for a guard to use.

Also the drivers controls don't have the ASDO override button that the guards need

For the Snow Hill Lines guards move to the rear most door to dispatch from short platforms, or from any coach if they're in the saloon checking/selling tickets.
If the 196s are like the 172s with regards to gangways, the cabs in the middle will be inaccessible as doors are locked into position to allow passengers to move between the two trains rather than to access the cab.

Given it's been mooted earlier in the thread that there may be 1 diagram on the Snow Hill Lines for a 196 (crewed by Worcester workers), Snow Hill Lines are probably a relevant comparison to make.

Again, assuming it's the same as with 197s, with the gangways in place the middle cabs will not be readily useable for dispatch.

Have the 196s even been built with Guard door controls in the cabs? Perhaps they were built without any door controls in the cabs so they need retrofitting in the cabs as well as in the saloon?

Thinking about it i do not think the 195s and 331s have any Guard door controls in the cabs. As i remember that during the corona virus some Guards were blocking off an entire coach for themselves so i think they only have them in the saloon.

It is indeed not possible for a guard to dispatch from the rear cab of a 195 or a 331. Aside from the lack of panels they also have manual cab doors rather than the electric doors fitted to 196s and 197s. AIUI you can only open these doors from the platform using a driver's key.

There must be door controls in the cabs of the 196s as built simply because they were ordered by the TOC and with DfT authorisation. This was because DCO was going to be the de facto method of train operation for the franchise. Personally am very surprised the Rosco who has lashed out many many million for this fleet didn't specify guards door controls in the saloons, then hid them with blanking plates and isolated the system for delivery to the TOC. Then hey presto, when it was realised that DCO would be dropped, the blanking plates were simply removed.

See above. The door controls in the cab may well not be in a suitable location to be used by a guard.

 

[AgentGemini]

196s have controls in the cabs but not guard friendly. On the driver's side, for say an island platform, they are across the seat towards the middle of the cab. There are none on the door side, whereas the class 170s had both, ie, two sets of door controlls on the driver side. On the second man side, there is a set of door controls but they are badly placed. The door open buttons are right up by the ceiling, separate from the close door and buzzer buttons which are eye level, same as on the 170s. So very difficult for guards to work indeed.

It does not look good for guard's backs or their dispatch procedure. And the saloon door panels have not yet been fitted - WMT are trying to push them through into service with trials and engineering runs but are dragging their feet over getting them fitted apparently.

 

[Nova1]

If the 196s are like the 172s with regards to gangways, the cabs in the middle will be inaccessible as doors are locked into position to allow passengers to move between the two trains rather than to access the cab.

Oddly I have seen guards operating the doors from the middle cabs even on gangwayed sets before.

 

[Sprinter107]

Oddly I have seen guards operating the doors from the middle cabs even on gangwayed sets before.

I dont know how, because those buttons are inoperable between the coupled cabs. Thats been the case since new with the gangwayed 172s.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If Covid hadn't have hit then DCO would most certainly have been on Shrewsbury, Hereford and Snow Hill lime series series.

What has COVID got to do with it? Why would the introduction of DCO been any more likely without COVID? If anything, the loss of revenue due to COVID would make the Government even more keen to force through DCO so they can get rid of the guard and thereby reduce staffing costs.

It is all about ordering rolling stock with a long shelf life and switchability after franchise changes. How many franchises operate diesel units using the DCO / DOO method ? We are seeing this with the stored class 379s - just eleven years old and redundant by GA. Ideally could be used on the GN route out of Kings Cross but need fitting with ETCS to do that, and who would pay ?

This sort of decision making (a total lack of joined-up thinking) sadly appears to be widespread. For example, the Government have their soundbite that all diesel-only trains would be removed by 2040 (unlikely to be acheived I know, but my MP has recently quoted it at me...) yet 195s, 196s and 197s exist and the possible additional batch of 195s recently reported in Modern Railways potentially having a lifespan stretching as far as 2060. As for the 379s, why would use on the GN route be ideal - aren't there still Southern coastway services in the hands of toiletless 313s?

 

[Wyrleybart]

As for the 379s, why would use on the GN route be ideal - aren't there still Southern coastway services in the hands of toiletless 313s?

379s are AC multiple units. Why spend time and money converting them to 750V DC ? Far easier for 379 to replace TSGN 387 which are dual voltage, then cascade the 387 onto south coast routes to withdraw 313.

Obviously 379 being non ETCS is a problem to replacing 387 on the GN but is it any more costly than converting 379 to DC ?

 

[train_lover]

Oddly I have seen guards operating the doors from the middle cabs even on gangwayed sets before.

Impossible. The cabs are dead on gangway sets.

 

[AlexNL]

Obviously 379 being non ETCS is a problem to replacing 387 on the GN but is it any more costly than converting 379 to DC ?

GN 387s don't have ETCS either, only the Heathrow Express units have it.

The design work done for the 387s is probably in a large part reusable on 379s.

 

[172007]

I dont know how, because those buttons are inoperable between the coupled cabs. Thats been the case since new with the gangwayed

What has COVID got to do with it? Why would the introduction of DCO been any more likely without COVID? If anything, the loss of revenue due to COVID would make the Government even more keen to force through DCO so they can get rid of the guard and thereby reduce staffing costs.


This sort of decision making (a total lack of joined-up thinking) sadly appears to be widespread. For example, the Government have their soundbite that all diesel-only trains would be removed by 2040 (unlikely to be acheived I know, but my MP has recently quoted it at me...) yet 195s, 196s and 197s exist and the possible additional batch of 195s recently reported in Modern Railways potentially having a lifespan stretching as far as 2060. As for the 379s, why would use on the GN route be ideal - aren't there still Southern coastway services in the hands of toiletless 313s?

As soon as Covid hit believe it or not a number of staff retired as they where uncertain as to how safe it was with Covid, looked at their pensions and went wow. Couple that with natural retirements, staff moving to other TOC's for more money and a complete cessation of one to one training for the best part of 18 months. This caused a perfect storm where the company has struggled to staff a very reduced service, train replacement Drivers let alone also train on top of this existing drivers for new traction. It is only just now getting to the place where drivers can be detached to train class 196's and not result in cancellations of service trains and this with a reduced timetable still.

 

[train_lover]

As soon as Covid hit believe it or not a number of staff retired as they where uncertain as to how safe it was with Covid, looked at their pensions and went wow. Couple that with natural retirements, staff moving to other TOC's for more money and a complete cessation of one to one training for the best part of 18 months. This caused a perfect storm where the company has struggled to staff a very reduced service, train replacement Drivers let alone also train on top of this existing drivers for new traction. It is only just now getting to the place where drivers can be detached to train class 196's and not result in cancellations of service trains and this with a reduced timetable still.

I'm unsure if that is strictly true in regards to driver's retiring

 

[Sprinter107]

As soon as Covid hit believe it or not a number of staff retired as they where uncertain as to how safe it was with Covid, looked at their pensions and went wow. Couple that with natural retirements, staff moving to other TOC's for more money and a complete cessation of one to one training for the best part of 18 months. This caused a perfect storm where the company has struggled to staff a very reduced service, train replacement Drivers let alone also train on top of this existing drivers for new traction. It is only just now getting to the place where drivers can be detached to train class 196's and not result in cancellations of service trains and this with a reduced timetable still.

On the routes I work i don't know of any driver who have retired due to covid. Any driver who has retired during the last two years wouldve done anyway.

 

[Rhydgaled]

379s are AC multiple units. Why spend time and money converting them to 750V DC ? Far easier for 379 to replace TSGN 387 which are dual voltage, then cascade the 387 onto south coast routes to withdraw 313.

Obviously 379 being non ETCS is a problem to replacing 387 on the GN but is it any more costly than converting 379 to DC ?

Ok, sorry; I assumed that since 387s, 377s and 379s looked so similar and all belong to the Electrostar family they were all dual-voltage and that, at most, all you'd need to do would be fit 3rd rail shoes to the 379s.

As soon as Covid hit believe it or not a number of staff retired as they where uncertain as to how safe it was with Covid, looked at their pensions and went wow. Couple that with natural retirements, staff moving to other TOC's for more money and a complete cessation of one to one training for the best part of 18 months. This caused a perfect storm where the company has struggled to staff a very reduced service, train replacement Drivers let alone also train on top of this existing drivers for new traction. It is only just now getting to the place where drivers can be detached to train class 196's and not result in cancellations of service trains and this with a reduced timetable still.

Again, less staff as a result of COVID would seemingly lead towards DCO being more likely, not less likely. Would having more staff available somehow have made introducing DCO more likely?

 

[SCDR_WMR]

On the routes I work i don't know of any driver who have retired due to covid. Any driver who has retired during the last two years wouldve done anyway.

There definitely have been some who have taken the decision to retire during covid, and there are plenty more looking to follow by end of this year at the depots I talk to/work with.

Majority who have left in the last 2 years were well past retirement age, but decided that health or their partners/themselves were the priority. Not retired due to the effects of covid mind you.

 

[train_lover]

There definitely have been some who have taken the decision to retire during covid, and there are plenty more looking to follow by end of this year at the depots I talk to/work with.

Majority who have left in the last 2 years were well past retirement age, but decided that health or their partners/themselves were the priority. Not retired due to the effects of covid mind you.

The point is that some were down to retire anyway. To say they retired because of covid is wrong.

 

[Sprinter107]

There definitely have been some who have taken the decision to retire during covid, and there are plenty more looking to follow by end of this year at the depots I talk to/work with.

Majority who have left in the last 2 years were well past retirement age, but decided that health or their partners/themselves were the priority. Not retired due to the effects of covid mind you.

Nobody at the depot I work at retired due to covid, they retired because they had planned to anyway. That goes for the 2 depots we cross cover for.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

The point is that some were down to retire anyway. To say they retired because of covid is wrong.

There are many that were due to retire before covid hit but chose to continue, the fact that they changed their minds during covid means you can rightly attribute that decision to covid as that was the reason they gave for the change of mind.